SRI JAGADISH S/O BHIMAPPA DALAWAI vs SRI NAGAPPA S/O SHIVAPAP KASHIGAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18000
WP No. 104848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020140232024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 104848 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAGADISH S/O BHIMAPPA DALAWAI
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O GARAG VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.
2. SRI. HANUMANTAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA DALAWAI
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O GARAG VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O SHIVAPAP KASHIGAR
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
2. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA DALAWAI
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
3. SRI. BASAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA DALAWAI
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: high
court of
karnataka,
dharwad
bench
4. SMT. DEVAKKA W/O HANUMANTAPPA DALAWAI
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
5. SMT. DRAKASHYANI W/O NAGAPPA DALAWAI
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
6. SMT. REKHA W/O JAGADISH DALAWAI
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
7. SRI. LAXMAN HARAKERI
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18000
WP No. 104848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020140232024
ALL ARE R/O. GARAG VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD 580105.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2,R4,R5,R6 AND R7 IS SERVED;
NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN MA NO.24/2024 DATED
07.08.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND CONSEQUENTLY SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/06/2024 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD TRIAL COURT
IN OS NO.390/2024 ON IA NO.III FILED U/ORD. 39 RULE 1
AND 2 CPC VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners, who are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S.
No. 390/2024 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC, Dharwad, are before this Court being
aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2024, whereby the
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18000
WP No. 104848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020140232024
Trial Court allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs-
respondents herein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of
CPC, restraining the petitioners herein from interfering
with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property. The said order has been confirmed by the IV
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad, in M.A.
No. 24/2024, by order dated 07.08.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits
that the petitioners purchased the suit schedule property
in terms of a registered sale deed dated 19.06.2008, duly
executed by its original owner. While the plaintiffs-
respondents herein claim to have purchased the very
same property in the year 2024. However, the petitioners
continue to be in possession of the suit property.
3. Learned counsel further submits that a suit in O.S. No.
112/2019 had been filed against the petitioners herein, in
which an ex-parte decree came to be passed. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein have filed a
Civil Miscellaneous Petition in Civil. Misc. No.19/2023,
seeking to set aside the said ex-parte decree.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18000
WP No. 104848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020140232024
4. It is contended that the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court, merely on the basis of the ex-parte judgment and
decree passed in O.S. No. 112/2019, have granted an
interim order as prayed for by the plaintiffs-respondents,
without examining the validity of the document executed
in favour of defendants-petitioners, by the original owner.
5. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the orders
passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First
Appellate Court warrant interference at the hands of this
Court.
6. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-
respondents submits that the sale deed dated 19.06.2008
was executed by one Fakkirappa Dalawai, also known as
Jogi, by impersonating the actual owner of the property,
namely, Fakkirappa Dalawai. He submits that no land was
granted in favour of the said Fakkirappa Dalawai @ Jogi.
Taking advantage of the similarity in the names, the said
person had created a false document in favour of
defendants-petitioners.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18000
WP No. 104848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020140232024
7. It is further submitted that, in the suit filed by the original
owners in O.S. No. 112/2019, the said sale deed has
been held to be not binding on the original owner and the
said judgment and decree has attained finality and has
not been reversed till date.
8. He further submits that several other proceedings are
pending in respect of the very same property involving
the petitioners herein. Therefore, the Trial Court and the
First Appellate Court were justified in granting the interim
relief as sought for by the plaintiffs-respondents. Hence,
he seeks dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Heard. Perused the records.
10. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have
taken note of the fact that the core dispute involved in
the matter is with regard to the entitlement to the suit
property namely, whether Fakkirappa Dalawai and
Fakkirappa Dalawai @ Jogi are two different persons or
the one and the same? The Trial Court and the First
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18000
WP No. 104848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020140232024
Appellate Court have found said question requires
determination.
11. However, the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court have taken note of the judgment already passed in
O.S. No. 112/2019, wherein the sale deed dated
19.06.2008, relied upon by defendants/petitioners herein,
has been held to be not binding on the original owner of
the suit property.
12. It is in that light of the matter that the Trial Court
and the First Appellate Court have granted the interim
order as sought for by the plaintiffs-respondents herein.
13. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality
committed by the Trial Court warranting interference in
the present writ petition. Hence, writ petition is
dismissed.
14. It is, however, made clear that since the
defendants/petitioners claim to have preferred a
miscellaneous petition seeking setting aside of the ex-
parte decree passed in O.S. No. 112/2019, in the event
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18000
WP No. 104848 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020140232024
of any relief being granted to them therein, they are
always at liberty to bring the same to the notice of the
Trial Court, pleading the changed circumstances, and
seek an appropriate order in the matter, in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
VB/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6